Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
ULTRAHUMAN HEALTHCARE PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
OURA HEALTH OY – Respondent
CS(COMM) 923/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Mr. Debashish Banerjee, Mr. Vaishali Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Mr. Afzal B. Khan, Mr. Arjun Khurana, Mr. Hardhik Choudhary, Ms. Annanya Mehan
Willful nondisclosure of relevant prior court orders in patent disputes incurs dismissal of the suit.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Application for exemption from pre-litigation mediation - Plaintiff filed an application seeking exemption, citing impossibility of mediation as parties are in litigation in US Courts - Application allowed for exemption from mediation. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Patent Law - Claim of infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 549915 by Defendants - Court found that Plaintiff failed to disclose material orders from US Courts regarding prior findings of patent infringement by Plaintiff's product - Court held non-disclosure was willful and disregarded procedural obligations, resulting in dismissal of the suit. (Paras 5-18)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff sought injunction against Defendants for infringing its patent relating to health-monitoring technology. Defendants argued non-disclosure of adverse findings from ITC proceedings in the US, which were relevant to the case.
Findings of Court:
Court found that Plaintiff’s failure to disclose US orders was willful and merited dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Plaintiff's non-disclosure of court orders from US, impacting the case's validity, justified dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that willful nondisclosure of material facts is a grave procedural lapse warranting dismissal. Relevant prior US proceedings directly influenced the case.
Result: Suit dismissed with liberty to Plaintiff to refile after full disclosure.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for mediation exemption is relevant due to ongoing litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. patent infringement claims initiated by plaintiff concerning a specific product. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. non-disclosure of relevant court orders led to the court's adverse findings against the plaintiff. (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. court ruled for suit dismissal due to procedural non-disclosure. (Para 17 , 18) |
O R D E R
% 01.09.2025 I.A. 21404/2025 (Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for exemption from exhausting the remedy of pre- institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 )
1. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff states that there is no possibility of mediation between the parties.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants as well confirms that the CS(COMM) 923/2025 Page 1 of 7 parties are already in lis against each other in United States (US) Courts as well therefore, there is no possibility of a mediation.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions this application is allowed and disposed of.
CS(COMM) 923/2025 and I.A. No. 21403/2025
5. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff inter-alia seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Indian Patent No. IN 549915 owned by the Plaintiff.
6. The invention claimed in the suit is titled ‘Electronic Ring Including Sensors For Monitoring Health and Fitness Parameters’. It is stated that the Indian Patent ’915 was granted in its favour on 10.09.2024 for a period 20 years from 04.03.2022.
6.1. The Plaintiff learnt about the launch of the impugned product of the Defendants in United States (US) market on 03.10.2024 vide social media platform, wherein OURA (i.e., Defendants) made an official announcement of the launch of ‘OURA Ring 4’.
6.2. In July, 2025 the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants are selling the impugned product in India through various e-commerce channels. Subsequently on 09.08.2025, Plaintiff learnt about Defendants brand expansion in the Indian markets through a social media post of a consultant Ms. Mayuri Pitali. The Plaintiff through a private investigator procured the impugned product from an e-commerce platform which was delivered within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court; and thus, it is evident that Defendants are preparing to introduce its impugned product in India.
6.3. It is stated that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are known to each CS(COMM) 923/2025 Page 2 of 7 other and in fact the parties have pending lis in the US Court and Courts in India, as mentioned in paragraphs ‘12-14’ of the plaint.
7. The Defendants entered appearance on advance service.
7.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants at the outset states that the Plaintiff has suppressed from this Court the order dated 18.04.2025, [Inv. No. 337-TA-1398.] passed by United States International Trade Commission (‘ITC’) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1398, injuncting the Plaintiff’s products in US market. He states that the said order returns a finding that Defendants ’178 patent has been infringed by the Plaintiff. He states that the said order dated 18.04.2025 has been confirmed by the ITC on 21.08.2025. He states that even the order dated 21.08.2025 does not even find any reference/mention in the plaint.
7.2. He states that the suit merely makes a reference to the pendency of the ITC proceedings, however, fails to disclose the injunction order dated
18.04.2025 passed against the Plaintiff herein.
7.3. He has drawn this Court’s attention to the findings recorded in the order dated 18.04.2025 at part ‘XI’, wherein the ITC has returned a finding that the Plaintiff’s product infringes Claims 1, 2 and 12-14 of the Defendants ’178 patent, [Patent No.: US 11,868,178 B2.]
7.4. He also relies
